Sharp is said to be ramping up production of LCD panels for the next-generation iPad after an investment from Apple for its manufacturing facilities, according to a new report.

Sources told The Wall Street Journal on Thursday that Sharp will produce the panels at its Kameyama No. 2 plant in central Japan. According to one person familiar with the matter, Apple has invested an unspecified amount in Sharp's factories.

Sharp already provides screens for the iPhone and is expected to also serve as a supplier for the next iPhone. Both the third-generation iPad and the sixth-generation iPhone are expected to launch next year, the tipster said. Japanese newspapers reported in April that Apple will tap Sharp for next-generation "low-temperature poly-silicon" technology to go into the next iPhone.

The report appears to corroborate comments from an analyst earlier this week. Peter Misek with Jeffries claimed recently that Sharp will provide IGZO (indium, gallium, zinc) LCD panels for the next iPhone and iPad. IGZO panels would allow for thinner designs and improved battery performance.

"The IGZO technology is perfect in that it offers near-OLED power consumption while having a lower cost and thinness that is only 25% greater than OLED, based on our checks," Misek wrote.

Adding Apple's iPad orders is seen as a big win for Sharp because the device's market dominance should provide steady volume for the manufacturer.

"This would allow Sharp to count on a more stable sales volume and would help its technology gain more attention," Mizuho Investors Securities analyst Nobuo Kurahashi told the Journal.

Late last year, rumors emerged that Apple was looking to invest a "large portion" of a $1.2 billion LCD manufacturing facility that Sharp was building. Reports of the investment surfaced again this summer, though some have suggested that Apple simply made an advance payment rather than investing in the plant..

Samsung and LG Display are widely believed to be the current suppliers of iPad LCD screens. Some industry watchers believe that Apple's growing legal battle with Samsung may have prompted Apple to diversify its suppliers. LG has also reportedly suffered quality issues with its iPad panels that may have contributed to limited supply of the iPad 2 earlier this year.

Apple admitted this April during a quarterly earnings conference call that it faced the "mother of all backlogs" with the iPad 2. The second-generation tablet remained in short supply for months after its March launch.

One recent report claimed Samsung, LG Display and Sharp have already begun stockpiling LCD panels for the third-generation iPad in preparation for assembly early next year. The three suppliers are said to have built a total of three million panels in October and November.

The iPad 3 is widely believed to feature a high-definition display with double the resolution of the previous generation. However, the near-Retina Display quality of the alleged 2,048 x 1,536 pixel screen has introduced several technical issues into the mix. For instance, Apple is rumored to be evaluating whether to add a second LED light bar to handle the upgraded display. Suppliers have also reportedly faced challenges with mass production of the screens.

In the meantime, I'm more than happy with using the iPad 2. That thing rules.

Apple has quite a challenge though. I think that it's going to be tough to have 4x as many pixels and still up the ante when it comes to performance (CPU and GPU), thinness and battery life. If anybody can do it, Apple can!

In the meantime, I'm more than happy with using the iPad 2. That thing rules.:

Does anyone even have a feasible iPad 2 competitor coming to market? Tegra 3 looks to make some advances over Apple's A5 and ICS is looking like the first version of Android that's not an inconsistent, non-beta mobile OS, but I don't think Tegra 3 GPUs even matches the iPad 2 so matching an iPad 3 with a Retina Display (265ppi) seems impossible for 2012. Maybe some PenTile sub-pizel fibbing, but it seems like IPS LCDs are going to be the most common for tablets for at least another year.

Quote:

Apple has quite a challenge though. I think that it's going to be tough to have 4x as many pixels and still up the ante when it comes to performance (CPU and GPU), thinness and battery life. If anybody can do it, Apple can!

I'm still skeptical here, but I was skeptical about the iPhone 4 jumping to 960x640 even though the iPad using the same base HW already pushed 1024x768.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Can you imagine the disappointment if the next iPad is not going to have that resolution? This rumor has been talked about and repeated so many damn times now that people are going to be whining left and right if it doesn't turn out to be true. The hype has been built up so much now, that
it will be a huge let down if it doesn't happen.

I don't really care too much, because like I mentioned, I'm still happy with the iPad 2, but I'm going to laugh my ass off if the insane resolution screen doesn't happen. That'll teach people not to put too much faith in rumors.

Can you imagine the disappointment if the next iPad is not going to have that resolution? This rumor has been talked about and repeated so many damn times now that people are going to be whining left and right if it doesn't turn out to be true. The hype has been built up so much now, that
it will be a huge let down if it doesn't happen.

I don't really care too much, because like I mentioned, I'm still happy with the iPad 2, but I'm going to laugh my ass off if the insane resolution screen doesn't happen. That'll teach people not to put too much faith in rumors.

No rumour has a realistic expectation of authenticity. Even if Apple has had 1 million HiDPI iPad 3 displays shipped to them already, if the competition isn't anywhere close the quality of each display, and/or backlight, and/or overall performance is too low for production then they could make the switch at the last minute. I seem to recall the original iPhone switched from plastic to glass very close to it's ship date.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

You're probably asking the wrong person that question. But the answer is of course no.

We already know that it doesn't matter if some Android device has better specs on paper, the overall usability is still worse. And they will never be able to match all of the quality apps that are available for the iPad. It's not just the hardware that matters of course, the biggest disadvantage that Android has is Android itself if you ask me.

How many "iPad killers" have already been released and have utterly and pathetically failed so far?

The next person to even mention the word "iPad killer" needs to be slapped in the face. It's like the boy who cried wolf. Nobody pays any attention to these lunatics anymore, when they've already been proven wrong so many times.

I don't really care too much, because like I mentioned, I'm still happy with the iPad 2, but I'm going to laugh my ass off if the insane resolution screen doesn't happen. That'll teach people not to put too much faith in rumors.

I think the high resolution will be a very important component of the success of the iPad 3. Super resolution is one of those things that people don't realize how much they will enjoy or how hard it is to actually do. The hard part is getting software developers to use the resolution. Apple solves this problem by doubling the resolution rather than incremental increases.

High resolution will certainly be an important factor for locking up the Chinese market. Have you ever displayed Chinese characters on an iPhone? It is no wonder the Chinese like the device so much. People who read books will certainly get hooked on high resolution. If Apple does make a 7 inch device, I'm sure it will have the same pixel count as the iPad 2. The photography market will love increased resolution. Professionals that use imaging software will use it. I can't think of a more important feature to expand sales and lock up the tablet market than a high resolution iPad.

Apple has the opportunity to crush the competition with a super resolution screen. Other tablet companies can't do it because of the incompatibility with screen sizes. If they try and go half way, it won't work. This is a key opportunity for Apple.

I also think that the graphics enhancements in the A5 processor were a harbinger of what is coming. Apple is pushing graphics capabilities. The most expensive and important part of a tablet is its screen. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple has negotiated a very favorable deal with Sharp that is going to crush the competition when it comes to matching Apple's performance. It is so obvious what Apple is doing here, I don't think we need to hope too much about the screen resolution. It is going to happen. I think it will happen with iPad3 as long as production isn't an issue.

Duh...of course LED is thicker and uses more power than OLED. No need to be upset. Current OLED technology sucks. You can't see anything in direct sunlight. If the brightness is turned up, the OLED polymers get bleached out. OLED may be a reality someday, but for now it sucks. The new IZGO panels will be exciting because they will reduce power consumption and thickness with improved performance.

I can't think of a more important feature to expand sales and lock up the tablet market than a high resolution iPad.

I agree that the super resolution screen is definitely useful and it will be a huge improvement when doing many things, if they can pull it off.

I do read some books on the iPad 2 and that is one area where a super resolution screen will make a big difference.

I don't think that gaming is that important. I have a few 1920x1080 monitors at home and when I play a game, I don't choose that resolution, because I'd rather have more FPS and choose a slightly lower resolution, than have more pixels but lower FPS.

But for things like reading books, reading text on web pages, viewing photos and some other tasks, it will definitely make a big difference.

You're probably asking the wrong person that question. But the answer is of course no.

We already know that it doesn't matter if some Android device has better specs on paper, the overall usability is still worse. And they will never be able to match all of the quality apps that are available for the iPad. It's not just the hardware that matters of course, the biggest disadvantage that Android has is Android itself if you ask me.

How many "iPad killers" have already been released and have utterly and pathetically failed so far?

The next person to even mention the word "iPad killer" needs to be slapped in the face. It's like the boy who cried wolf. Nobody pays any attention to these lunatics anymore, when they've already been proven wrong so many times.

I think Amazon Fire has the best shot. Amazon has two things going for it: (i) price and (ii) content. Consumers respond very well to price. $300 is so much cheaper it will absolutely have an impact on the ability to compete. It doesn't matter that the device is inferior, there is a huge percentage of the market that will find it to be good enough or that just simply can't afford the more expensive device.

The second item, content, is also critical. Content is probably the single biggest detrimental feature to previous "iPad killers." It doesn't do any good to have a media device if you don't have media to play. Tablets need music, books, and movies, not just Apps. Amazon has this media content and they will be able to satisfy customers who will actually use and buy that content.

As an Apple shareholder, I expect Apple to have an answer for the Amazon Fire. Apple better be busting out a 7 inch device that can compete on price. It doesn't have to be $200, but it needs to be within $100 or Apple is going to lose a large segment of the market. Over time, that low end of the market will eat away at the premium end and Apple will be left with nothing. They have to respond to this threat. Let's hope Apple can hit the sub $250 price point. If they do, I think they curtail the Amazon Fire threat.

I think Amazon Fire has the best shot. Amazon has two things going for it: (i) price and (ii) content. Consumers respond very well to price. $300 is so much cheaper it will absolutely have an impact on the ability to compete. It doesn't matter that the device is inferior, there is a huge percentage of the market that will find it to be good enough or that just simply can't afford the more expensive device.

The second item, content, is also critical. Content is probably the single biggest detrimental feature to previous "iPad killers." It doesn't do any good to have a media device if you don't have media to play. Tablets need music, books, and movies, not just Apps. Amazon has this media content and they will be able to satisfy customers who will actually use and buy that content.

As an Apple shareholder, I expect Apple to have an answer for the Amazon Fire. Apple better be busting out a 7 inch device that can compete on price. It doesn't have to be $200, but it needs to be within $100 or Apple is going to lose a large segment of the market. Over time, that low end of the market will eat away at the premium end and Apple will be left with nothing. They have to respond to this threat. Let's hope Apple can hit the sub $250 price point. If they do, I think they curtail the Amazon Fire threat.

The fire is no threat. Steve clearly stated they will not go that direction.

I see the fire getting canned and a revision coming soon. But who knows they don't make any money off them anyway.

The fire is no threat. Steve clearly stated they will not go that direction.

I see the fire getting canned and a revision coming soon. But who knows they don't make any money off them anyway.

I don't see it as a threat to the iPad in fact I think it will help it in the long run but it is a threat all other non-iPad tablets trying to carve out a niche, especially proper Android OS-based tablets.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Sources ain't what they used to be. Neither is the Wall Street Tabloid.

Quote:

iPad 3

Which is a made-up name christened by the blogosphere. Please use 'next iPad'

Quote:

the so-called iPhone 6

iPhone WHAT???. I don't even understand what that's supposed to refer to \

This is exactly the kind of rumor juicing that got everyone's panties all twisted in a bunch when Apple unveiled the iPhone 4S. Have we learned nothing from that??? The Wall Street Journal's just echoing the SAME unverified rumors that we heard earlier about Sharp.

Which is a made-up name christened by the blogosphere. Please use 'next iPad'

iPad..........iPad 2.............it's only natural and common sense that people will call the next one in line the iPad 3 when referring to it.

Now, is there a chance that Apple may decide to call it something else? Sure, that's possible. It's also quite possible that it will simply be called the iPad 3.

To be honest, I don't care what Apple calls it when it gets released. I don't think there's any problem with referring to it as iPad 3 right now. That doesn't mean that people who use that term are saying that that is the final name that Apple will choose. I'm certainly not claiming that.

according to the Jobs bio, they also tooled a factory in China to make the glass panels for the NYC store, and I assume that factory also has the contract for the glass to be used in the new HQ. huge panels, none of them flat, all glass exterior.

with all that cash in the bank it makes a hell of a lot of sense to "reinvest" in manufacturing. exclusive contract for all output (and deny other companies at the same time)

did Apple buy all the CNC machines available to cut the MBA/ipad chassis? I read other companies can't make their own in volume because someone cornered the market.

If I had to compare Sharp and LG. I honestly have seen LG failures more often compared to Sharp Products.

Does any one remember the post here a while back where Apple had decided to switch from LG to another manufacturer for their LCD screens because of quality issues? Although LG is one of the largest producers of LCD screens, the screens are going into the cheap LCD TV models like Coby and RCA.

Sharp on the other hand is not like Korean based LG. Sharp makes great TV's and LCD screens. I have yet to work on a Sharp LCD TV. I have worked on LG based TV's and on the most part the LCD panels failed. Bad news for the customer. I had to tell them that their so called nice LG TV was not worth fixing because the LCD panel was bad.

If I had to compare Sharp and LG. I honestly have seen LG failures more often compared to Sharp Products.

Does any one remember the post here a while back where Apple had decided to switch from LG to another manufacturer for their LCD screens because of quality issues? Although LG is one of the largest producers of LCD screens, the screens are going into the cheap LCD TV models like Coby and RCA.

Sharp on the other hand is not like Korean based LG. Sharp makes great TV's and LCD screens. I have yet to work on a Sharp LCD TV. I have worked on LG based TV's and on the most part the LCD panels failed. Bad news for the customer. I had to tell them that their so called nice LG TV was not worth fixing because the LCD panel was bad.

Speaking of sharp, I replaced my 4 year old 32" lcd aquos for a new 40" aquos led backlight...wow it seriously puts my Parents 55" Samsung and my older tv to shame in image quality. Stunning! And makes playing modern warfare 3 quite enjoyable hA

The thing most people don't get about the Amazon Fire is that it is meant strictly for media consumption. Content is important. The iPad, however, can actually be used as a computer replacement and create content. For instance, my brother recorded a sweet sounding album using largely just the iPad. That is not possible on a Kindle Fire. Moreover, the Fire is missing cameras, microphone, aluminum chassis, compass, gyroscope, and a well seasoned OS.

Further, if you have tried an iPad you will be largely disappointed by the Fire. It's touchscreen is unresponsive, and the interface needs some work. With that said though, I think lots of people will buy the Fire based on price. Many will think they have something just as good as an iPad. Amazon has phenomenal marketing power. Sadly enough, if you want just a cheap media consumption device, Barnes and Noble's Nook performs significantly better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ash471

I think Amazon Fire has the best shot. Amazon has two things going for it: (i) price and (ii) content. Consumers respond very well to price. $300 is so much cheaper it will absolutely have an impact on the ability to compete. It doesn't matter that the device is inferior, there is a huge percentage of the market that will find it to be good enough or that just simply can't afford the more expensive device.

The second item, content, is also critical. Content is probably the single biggest detrimental feature to previous "iPad killers." It doesn't do any good to have a media device if you don't have media to play. Tablets need music, books, and movies, not just Apps. Amazon has this media content and they will be able to satisfy customers who will actually use and buy that content.

As an Apple shareholder, I expect Apple to have an answer for the Amazon Fire. Apple better be busting out a 7 inch device that can compete on price. It doesn't have to be $200, but it needs to be within $100 or Apple is going to lose a large segment of the market. Over time, that low end of the market will eat away at the premium end and Apple will be left with nothing. They have to respond to this threat. Let's hope Apple can hit the sub $250 price point. If they do, I think they curtail the Amazon Fire threat.

It's not just the Kindle Fire that has that problem. No Android device is acceptable for music creation. There is a horrible audio latency on Android that makes it unusable. iOS devices use core audio, which rocks. I have no idea what Android uses, but without getting too technical about it, I will simply say that it sucks.

There is a horrible audio latency on Android that makes it unusable. iOS devices use core audio, which rocks. I have no idea what Android uses, but without getting too technical about it, I will simply say that it sucks.

Investing in old tech LCD is a wrong move. Sharp does not have Super AMOLED technology.

In one year from now Apple will be far behind from Samy, Nokia and Moto - all three already started to use Super AMOLED for their high end phones.

That's like saying investing in development of new internal combustion engines is a wrong move, because one year from now, Smart, Nissan, and Mitsubishi will have battery-powered cars, and anyone still using gas engines will be "far behind."

They've probably stolen plenty of things from Oracle, but when it comes to their audio latency problem, I think it's more of a matter of something that is missing from their OS.

I'm no programmer, and I'm not going to pretend to play one on the net, but here's what I understand. iOS uses Core Audio, which I guess isn't so hard to figure out by the name, but it processes audio at the very core of the OS. I guess that Android doesn't have anything similar to that. Or whatever they have is really, really bad in comparison.

If there's one thing that I know, it's music tech and music apps, and the latency for doing something like playing a keyboard or guitar on the iPad is really low, it's actually very playable and musical. That can not be done on Android, due to the horrible latency.

I was reading some music app developer forum recently, and they were talking about this Android audio latency problem in a much greater technical detail than my explanation is able to provide.

The thing most people don't get about the Amazon Fire is that it is meant strictly for media consumption. Content is important. The iPad, however, can actually be used as a computer replacement and create content. For instance, my brother recorded a sweet sounding album using largely just the iPad. That is not possible on a Kindle Fire. Moreover, the Fire is missing cameras, microphone, aluminum chassis, compass, gyroscope, and a well seasoned OS.

Further, if you have tried an iPad you will be largely disappointed by the Fire. It's touchscreen is unresponsive, and the interface needs some work. With that said though, I think lots of people will buy the Fire based on price. Many will think they have something just as good as an iPad. Amazon has phenomenal marketing power. Sadly enough, if you want just a cheap media consumption device, Barnes and Noble's Nook performs significantly better.

Apple has quite a challenge though. I think that it's going to be tough to have 4x as many pixels and still up the ante when it comes to performance (CPU and GPU), thinness and battery life.

My number 1 wish for iPad 2 was more RAM. iPad 1's very limited RAM was a ceiling I constantly hit and one I couldn't wait to be lifted. It was the main reason I sold my iPad 1 for an iPad 2.

The double resolution display on iPad 3 is going to be a seriously huge competitive advantage, and the iPad 3 will really be "the future" because of it, but I fear the addition of this super display will negate any real performance increases iPad 3 gets. Therefor, my next iPad will be iPad 4. That's when things start to get really get exciting. When both display AND performance clearly outshine iPad 2. iPad 3 will be no doubt interesting to iPad 1 owners.

Serioulsy though, imagine iPad 6 for a moment? Imagine that product. Imagine its OS. The future of the iPad is truly exciting. I can't wait to see what's to come.

My number 1 wish for iPad 2 was more RAM. iPad 1's very limited RAM was a ceiling I constantly hit and one I couldn't wait to be lifted. It was the main reason I sold my iPad 1 for an iPad 2.

The double resolution display on iPad 3 is going to be a seriously huge competitive advantage, and the iPad 3 will really be "the future" because of it, but I fear the addition of this super display will negate any real performance increases iPad 3 gets. Therefor, my next iPad will be iPad 4. That's when things start to get really get exciting. When both display AND performance clearly outshine iPad 2. iPad 3 will be no doubt interesting to iPad 1 owners.

Serioulsy though, imagine iPad 6 for a moment? Imagine that product. Imagine its OS. The future of the iPad is truly exciting. I can't wait to see what's to come.

It'll have to have to be 1GB minimum if they want to go to from XGA to QXGA. How much RAM does the current GPU use on average? Will 1GB be enough for it and the OS and apps?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

I'm no programmer, and I'm not going to pretend to play one on the net, but here's what I understand. iOS uses Core Audio, which I guess isn't so hard to figure out by the name, but it processes audio at the very core of the OS. I guess that Android doesn't have anything similar to that. Or whatever they have is really, really bad in comparison.

It appears this still isn't in ICS, which is otherwise the version of Android that has finally caught up to the original iPhone in completeness.

I'm not sure if Xaudio 2 is for WP7 or not, but I bet they have some low-level audio API for WP7.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

You're probably asking the wrong person that question. But the answer is of course no.

We already know that it doesn't matter if some Android device has better specs on paper, the overall usability is still worse. And they will never be able to match all of the quality apps that are available for the iPad. It's not just the hardware that matters of course, the biggest disadvantage that Android has is Android itself if you ask me.

How many "iPad killers" have already been released and have utterly and pathetically failed so far?

The next person to even mention the word "iPad killer" needs to be slapped in the face. It's like the boy who cried wolf. Nobody pays any attention to these lunatics anymore, when they've already been proven wrong so many times.

While everything you state is accurate, I think the biggest issues for the competitors is that Apple is moving so quickly, they can never even hope to keep up (if even half of the rumors about future devices are true). About the very best they can do with the physical device itself is to copy (usually poorly) the previous generation. But with Apple producing so many units, it's very hard for them to compete on price because Apple can produce them cheaper because of the quantities. The only winning approach is to try and produce something completely different. The e-book readers that use electronic ink take that approach and I think it's a smart one: they essentially do one thing really well and that one thing is better in at least some situations than the iPad as an eBook reader.

I was with a baby boom aged couple over Thanksgiving. The woman has been a Mac user for some time; the guy has always been a PC user, but never really understood how to accomplish things on his computer. I showed them how easy it was to shoot and send video on their iPad and it blew their minds.

I think Amazon Fire has the best shot. Amazon has two things going for it: (i) price and (ii) content. Consumers respond very well to price. $300 is so much cheaper it will absolutely have an impact on the ability to compete. It doesn't matter that the device is inferior, there is a huge percentage of the market that will find it to be good enough or that just simply can't afford the more expensive device.

The second item, content, is also critical. Content is probably the single biggest detrimental feature to previous "iPad killers." It doesn't do any good to have a media device if you don't have media to play. Tablets need music, books, and movies, not just Apps. Amazon has this media content and they will be able to satisfy customers who will actually use and buy that content.

As an Apple shareholder, I expect Apple to have an answer for the Amazon Fire. Apple better be busting out a 7 inch device that can compete on price. It doesn't have to be $200, but it needs to be within $100 or Apple is going to lose a large segment of the market. Over time, that low end of the market will eat away at the premium end and Apple will be left with nothing. They have to respond to this threat. Let's hope Apple can hit the sub $250 price point. If they do, I think they curtail the Amazon Fire threat.

While I agree that the Amazon and B&N devices are good devices as e-book readers, I disagree with your analysis. If anything, users of the Amazon Fire and similar devices will use them for a while, get used to the technology and then want something better, if only so they can unify their usage on one device. And those people will then upgrade to the incredible capabilities (especially in future models) of the iPad. Or they'll have two devices: a Nook or Kindle for ebook reading and an iPad as a PC replacement, since most people who don't use a PC for business related tasks don't actually need a PC.

Apple has never played at the low end of the market. And Amazon is probably selling below cost in order to gain market share, another game that Apple won't play. If Apple did play that game, the stock price might even fall if they're losing money on the operation. Saying that Apple needs to respond to the Fire is like saying that Apple should have responded to the low-priced PC clones. They didn't and they made the right move. Eventually the market discovered that Apple, even when more expensive, was the better buy, even in a recession.